werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) (01/02/90)
I do this a lot.
Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type.
On a Mac, you can't.
A downloaded text file has no associated application. If you
double click it, it gives you an error message.
Now you can see the file. In Multi-finder this is especially
trivial. You keep a copy of your favorite word processor around, in
background, and:
1. Switch to the word-processor.
2. Go to the file menu, choose open
3. Select the file. (Now at this point, you have to remember what
it was actually called, not just where it was on the desktop.)
4. You're there, that is in most cases. I find that a lot of
text files are tabbed, and our word processor's default is Times-Roman,
so:
4a. Select the entire text
5. Go to the font menu, and select Courier. This usually causes
wrapping of some sort, so
5a. Lower the point size.
6. Now, you're there.
(This can be partially made into a macro, but the font/ps
conversion step in much slower within the macro, than outside.
I don't know why.)
Yet another reason to hate the Mac.
--
Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 4.5 years down, 2.5 to go)
werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine
(1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517)
"Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died."jspear@gryphon.COM (Jon Spear) (01/02/90)
You might wonder why nobody has posted an article saying that Werner's
problems are easily solved... we have, but they were sent to (yuck)
comp.sys.ibm.pc only (as was directed by the Followup-To field). In the
unlikely event you care, please follow the discussion there.
--
-----
[The following address is soon to evaporate. New address sought.]
Jon L Spear: jspear@gryphon.COM <routing site>!gryphon!jspear
gryphon!jspear@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov
"With computers we can make billions of mistakes every second!"d6maca@dtek.chalmers.se. (Martin Carlberg) (01/03/90)
In article <2702@aecom.yu.edu> werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: > > I do this a lot. > Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type. >On a Mac, you can't. > > A downloaded text file has no associated application. If you >double click it, it gives you an error message. [Deleted stuff about Craig describing that he has to change font and size on the document etc....] Have you ever tried it on a Mac? I do this a lot too and there are not as painfull as you describe it. My textfiles are in two categories: 1. A WriteNow (or other wordprocessor) document downloaded by XModem/MacBinary or some equivalent protocol. When it is downloaded it has the right icon and I only have to dubble-click it to check it out. All fonts and sizes etc. are as they should be. No problems at all. 2. A binhex file from the net. Now I have a nice terminal emulator that set a default application on textfiles, but if I didn't have that I should start Stuffit by hand to binhex and unstuffit the file. If I had to check it out first I should start an editor (I have one in the Applemenu) instead of a wordprocessor. It's faster and you don't have to change fonts and sizes or if you must use a wordprocessor, use one that can setup default font and size on new files (most wordprocessors can do this) > Yet another reason to hate the Mac. I should hate the Mac too if I have to go thru all that you describe, but I do love It. - Martin Carlberg - Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
roy@comcon.UUCP (Roy M. Silvernail) (01/03/90)
In article <1990Jan2.194210.2304@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, tdrinkar@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu (Terrell Drinkard) writes: > Anyone else have some suggestions? Particularly as they compare > and contrast with various Macintosh methods? I would like to hear > them, I think most of us can use either machine, though we all have > biases and probably use one machine much more than the other. Here > is an opportunity to see what is available. I use Vern Buerg's excellent LIST.COM and FV.COM. LIST (actually LIST PLUS, as I use the enhanced version) lets you look at a file almost any way you want. Wordstar filter, junk filter, doesn't cough on Unix EOL, wraps long lines, extracts directly from at least 4 archivers, so you can view directories and text within archives... (pausing for breath :-) It will even dial the phone from an on-screen number, using a COM1 modem. The archive tricks are done with FV. You can view _any_ file... binaries too. Use it to scan for questionable text in downloaded .exe's. The newest version of LIST just came out in c.b.i.p and there are many more options that I havn't touched on. It's very much worth the trouble to try it. I use it every day. (oh, and QEDIT is the text/programmer editor of choice for me... but that's another story, because you asked about viewers. :-) -- _R_o_y _M_. _S_i_l_v_e_r_n_a_i_l | UUCP: uunet!comcon!roy | "Every race must arrive at this #include <opinions.h>;#define opinions MINE | point in its history" SnailMail: P.O. Box 210856, Anchorage, | ........Mr. Slippery Alaska, 99521-0856, U.S.A., Earth, etc. | <Ono-Sendai: the right choice!>
bill@polygen.uucp (Bill Poitras) (01/03/90)
In article <110@lad.scs.com> lad@lad.scs.com (Lawrence A. Deleski) writes: >From article <2702@aecom.yu.edu>, by werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner): >> Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type. >> On a Mac, you can't. > >Oh? Since when? Keep a copy of Edit around, (available from Apple or any >reasonably repuatble BBS) and double-click on the DL'ed text file. It'll >appear on the screen within seconds, formatting information intact (tabs, >etc.) and in Monaco 9, a very readable font. > >Using type ion a PC makes you fiddle with CNTL-S and CNTL-Q so you can read >the file. Download this, use this utility, call up this DA, convert the file to this format... blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. How about 'type filename | more'. Or how about 'more < filename'. Hmmm...... What bulliten board do you have to goto to get this? NONE!!!!. I have installed naked DOS for numberous people, and when I want to look at an README file for a package that I have never seen before, (a new spreadsheet for example), type works just fine for me. Ok, ok, say it: "type sucks!!!!, my utility/DA has text search ability, page up/down, scroll sideways, printing, etc. etc." Well so does LIST.COM. When I run the Norton Commander, all I have to do is double click on a .TXT .ME .1ST or a .<nothing> and LIST gets called up. I can then configure the colors as I want them, and hit alt-C to save my configuration. My point is yes, type is very primitive way to read file text files, but you can do it at any time you want from DOS. If you want to get fancier, well do what Mac users have to do to read a text file at all in the first place, get a nice utility from you favorite BBS. Don't compare a Mac to a PC when talking about stupid, fast, simple, convinient tasks; as Ivan Drago said to Apollo Creed in Rocky IV: "You will lose!". Stick to what you are good at: consistent user interface, good graphics, and virtual monitors. The Mac is not better than PC in every thing, its just better some things. +-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+ | Bill Poitras | Polygen Corporation | {princeton mit-eddie | | (bill) | Waltham, MA USA | bu sunne}!polygen!bill | | | | bill@polygen.com | +-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+
6600pete@hub.UUCP (01/04/90)
From article <652@fred.UUCP>, by bill@polygen.uucp (Bill Poitras): > Download this, use this utility, call up this DA, convert the file to this > format... blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. How about 'type filename | more'. > Or how about 'more < filename'. Hmmm...... What bulliten board do you have to > goto to get this? NONE!!!!. Same with the Mac. Use TeachText. Comes with every copy of the Mac System disks. Free. With the OS. Without downloading. Without converting formats. Without using utilities. (And your crack about calling up DA's is silly; you're doing the same thing by using TYPE _or_ MORE under DOS.) TeachText will even let you look at embedded graphics in files that are otherwise TEXT, and EVERYbody can do it with the OS right out of the box. > My point is yes, type is very primitive way to read file text files, but you > can do it at any time you want from DOS. Hmmm. The Mac lets you do it any time you want, and it isn't primitive. To quote a recent article, "Hmmm......" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (01/04/90)
d6maca@dtek.chalmers.se. (Martin Carlberg) writes: <In article <2702@aecom.yu.edu> werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: <> <> I do this a lot. <> Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type. <>On a Mac, you can't. <> <> A downloaded text file has no associated application. If you <>double click it, it gives you an error message. <[Deleted stuff about Craig describing that he has to change font and size on <the document etc....] <Have you ever tried it on a Mac? I do this a lot too and there are not as <painfull as you describe it. My textfiles are in two categories: 1. A <WriteNow (or other wordprocessor) document downloaded by XModem/MacBinary or <some equivalent protocol. When it is downloaded it has the right icon and I <only have to dubble-click it to check it out. All fonts and sizes etc. are <as they should be. No problems at all. These are *not* "textfiles"!! As you say they are WORDPROCESSOR DOCUMENTS. <2. A binhex file from the net. Now I <have a nice terminal emulator that set a default application on textfiles, <but if I didn't have that I should start Stuffit by hand to binhex and unstuffit <the file. If I had to check it out first I should start an editor (I have one <in the Applemenu) instead of a wordprocessor. It's faster and you don't have <to change fonts and sizes or if you must use a wordprocessor, use one that can <setup default font and size on new files (most wordprocessors can do this) Also not a textfile. <sigh> What he was talking about were such things as capturing a sesion on a BBS, or downloading some news articles from the net. Those give ASCII *text*. Part of the problem is that people are assuming that what they do is the only thing that *anybody* does. This is and always will be wrong. Me, I don't do any of the things the Mac is reportedly good at. The few that I might want to do in the future aren't *nearly* enough to invest *double* the amount I have currently invested in my PC system for something that won't suit *my* needs as well. If the Mac works best for you, fine just don't insist that it "must" be better for me too! -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short
leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (01/04/90)
You want better ways than "type" to view a text file on a PC? Ok... Install 4dos (a replacement for COMMAND.COM) Now type: list filename You can now page forwards and backwards thru the file or even search for occurences of a string. And if you switch to 43x80 or 50x80 or whatever, it cheerfully switches to accomodate. 4dos is a *great* program, and has good support. BTW it also lets you create aliases ala unix shells. -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short
news@blackbird.afit.af.mil (News System Account) (01/04/90)
In article <2702@aecom.yu.edu> werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: > > I do this a lot. > Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type. >On a Mac, you can't. > > A downloaded text file has no associated application. If you >double click it, it gives you an error message. > (A crude work-around deleted) > werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine > (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) > "Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died." Some Mac telecomm applications let you assign a "CREATOR" value to text files, which does associate a given application with it. Also, there are a multitude of Desk Accessory text editors which will let you open and edit the file while you are still in the telecomm program. Multifinder is not needed. Try "typing" the DOS text file while still in your DOS telecomm program. Take it from a reformed Big Blue hacker who still has to use MeSsyDOS at work, the more you know both systems, the better off you are choosing the right tool for the job. Maurice lriggins@blackbird.afit.af.mil (129.92.1.2)
folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) (01/04/90)
"" My point is yes, type is very primitive way to read file text files, but you "" can do it at any time you want from DOS. " "Hmmm. The Mac lets you do it any time you want, and it isn't primitive. "To quote a recent article, "Hmmm......" I think you missed a point. When he says "any time you want from DOS", I think he means "any time you want from the DOS prompt." Using a DA, a Mac user can literally view a file at any time, even while running in another program. (Under MultiFinder, you can run teachtext simultaneously with another application, but a DA is faster for ASCII-only files.) (Of course, I am very DOS-ignorant, so maybe DOS 4.0 allows a MultiFinder-like multi-tasking ability.) -- Wayne Folta (folta@cs.umd.edu 128.8.128.8)
dkelly@npiatl.UUCP (Dwight Kelly) (01/05/90)
bill@polygen.uucp (Bill Poitras) writes: > [ Writes: It great to have a shell command called type ] Well, every Mac comes with a file viewer called TeachText. Let's not compare Apples to "IBM"s. Please. Dwight Kelly Network Publications, Inc.
6600pete@hub.UUCP (01/05/90)
From article <21628@mimsy.umd.edu>, by folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta): >>>My point is yes, type is very primitive way to read file text files, but you >>>can do it at any time you want from DOS. >> The Mac lets you do it any time you want, and it isn't primitive. > I think you missed a point. When he says "any time you want from DOS", I > think he means "any time you want from the DOS prompt." Using a DA, a Mac > user can literally view a file at any time, even while running in another > program. (Under MultiFinder, you can run teachtext simultaneously with > another application, but a DA is faster for ASCII-only files.) You're probably right; he probably meant from the command prompt. Which makes DAs even more powerful than TYPE. But his point was also that DAs like that aren't shipped with the OS. TeachText is. So while DAs are a more powerful concept, you don't get one with a vanilla Mac. Yo do get TeachText. And MultiFinder, by the way. Have your terminal create text files of creator 'ttxt' and you can even double click them. > (Of course, I am very DOS-ignorant, so maybe DOS 4.0 allows a MultiFinder-like > multi-tasking ability.) I keep hearing things about DOS 4.01 on '386 machines, but I haven't had the "privelege" of seeing it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
6600pete@hub.UUCP (01/05/90)
From article <1892@bucket.UUCP>, by leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson): > You want better ways than "type" to view a text file on a PC? Ok... > Install 4dos (a replacement for COMMAND.COM) Now type: But 4DOS is a third-party enhancement. The original complaint was the lack of utilities shipped with the OS. (The complaint was borne out of ignorance, of course...) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
jtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson) (01/05/90)
>> I think you missed a point. When he says "any time you want from DOS", I >> think he means "any time you want from the DOS prompt." Using a DA, a Mac >> user can literally view a file at any time, even while running in another >> program. (Under MultiFinder, you can run teachtext simultaneously with >> another application, but a DA is faster for ASCII-only files.) > >You're probably right; he probably meant from the command prompt. Which makes >DAs even more powerful than TYPE. But his point was also that DAs like that >aren't shipped with the OS. TeachText is. So while DAs are a more powerful >concept, you don't get one with a vanilla Mac. Yo do get TeachText. And >MultiFinder, by the way. A "more" or "page" DA is clearly the way to go, however to make it even SIMPLER the finder could do the following: You have a pure text file and you want to open it so you double click on it. Ooops, there's obviously no application for something called "document" so the finder automatically pops up a menu of popular applications for the user to select from and then opens up the document with the selected application. Or the finder could be programmed to open "documents" with a default application like Teachtext. It really isn't helpful to the user to display alerts that say things like "oh... I can't open that." A beteter philosophy is to have the computer propose solutions(i.e. "what would you like me to open this unknown document with?"). -- John T. Nelson UUCP: sun!sundc!potomac!jtn Advanced Decision Systems Internet: jtn@potomac.ads.com 1500 Wilson Blvd #512; Arlington, VA 22209-2401 (703) 243-1611
peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce) (01/05/90)
In article <10287@zodiac.ADS.COM> jtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson) writes: > >A "more" or "page" DA is clearly the way to go, however to make it >even SIMPLER the finder could do the following: > >You have a pure text file and you want to open it so you double click >on it. Ooops, there's obviously no application for something called >"document" so the finder automatically pops up a menu of popular >applications for the user to select from and then opens up the >document with the selected application. Or the finder could be >programmed to open "documents" with a default application like >Teachtext. > >It really isn't helpful to the user to display alerts that say things >like "oh... I can't open that." A beteter philosophy is to have the >computer propose solutions(i.e. "what would you like me to open this >unknown document with?"). Well, I disagree (obviously). If I'm trying to open a MacDraw II file and don't have MacDraw II around, having TeachText open it up "by default" is a horrible solution. All I'll see is garbage. Same with an Excel document, etc. This would REALLY confuse nonHacker users. Fact is, my machine at home (where I don't do programming) doesn't have a single TEXT file in all it's 40 meg of files! Neither does my Mom or Dad's machines. TEXT files just aren't that common on Mac unless the user is a programmer or comm hacker - and these people are a small minority of Mac users. Again I think we're just seeing the difference here in expectations. TEXT files are not really the Mac way to do things and lots of support for them would work against the basic metaphor of the machine - Applications and Documents go together and you (mostly) need the original program to read a document file in (unless of course there is a conversion facility build into the program). Claris Corp. | Michael R. Peirce -------------+-------------------------------------- | 5201 Patrick Henry Drive MS-C4 | Box 58168 | Santa Clara, CA 95051-8168 | (408) 987-7319 | AppleLink: peirce1 | Internet: peirce@claris.com | uucp: {ames,decwrl,apple,sun}!claris!peirce
news@vice2.utc.chalmers.se (News System) (01/06/90)
>d6maca@dtek.chalmers.se. (Martin Carlberg) writes: ><In article <2702@aecom.yu.edu> werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) writes: ><> Download a text file. Now try to display it. On a PC, use type. ><>On a Mac, you can't. ><[Deleted stuff about Craig describing that he has to change font and size on ><the document etc....] ><Have you ever tried it on a Mac? I do this a lot too and there are not as ><painfull as you describe it. My textfiles are in two categories: 1. A ><WriteNow (or other wordprocessor) document downloaded by XModem/MacBinary or ><some equivalent protocol. When it is downloaded it has the right icon and I ><only have to dubble-click it to check it out. All fonts and sizes etc. are ><as they should be. No problems at all. From: d6maca@dtek.chalmers.se. (Martin Carlberg) Path: hacke8!d6maca >These are *not* "textfiles"!! As you say they are WORDPROCESSOR DOCUMENTS. They can be textfiles too. If I download a file from a Mac or a machine that supports Mac format, I will always get right icon as long as I have the application the file was made by. And don't say that people don't have the right application. We are talking about textfiles and most textfiles I download are made by this little textapplication that comes with the MacOS (I don't know that it is called on the US system). If the file is made by a application not owned by me, I have to use my favorite textapplication and load the file from it. That is probably faster on a PC if I don't type slow. ><2. A binhex file from the net. Now I ><have a nice terminal emulator that set a default application on textfiles, ><but if I didn't have that I should start Stuffit by hand to binhex and unstuffit ><the file. If I had to check it out first I should start an editor (I have one ><in the Applemenu) instead of a wordprocessor. It's faster and you don't have ><to change fonts and sizes or if you must use a wordprocessor, use one that can ><setup default font and size on new files (most wordprocessors can do this) >Also not a textfile. <sigh> A binhex file is a textfile. I didn't say this clear enough. Also I download files like this article or other documentation files (textfiles) from many places and what I said under 2. is true for this too. I'm running Multifinder and after my textfile is downloaded, the file appears in a background window (in the finder) with its icon. I do a doubleclick and my texteditor starts and opens the file. The text is in Monaco 9. >What he was talking about were such things as capturing a sesion on a BBS, or >downloading some news articles from the net. Those give ASCII *text*. Yes, I know. That is what I was talking about too (under 2.). >Part of the problem is that people are assuming that what they do is the >only thing that *anybody* does. This is and always will be wrong. Yes, that is correct. I'm saying what I do, not what everybody has to do. When I hear someone say that they can't do this, then if I can do it, I say that. - Martin Carlberg - Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
sdawalt@wright.EDU (Shane Dawalt) (01/07/90)
I can't stand it anymore ... I just gotta voice my opinion before I explode! (This has been brewing for a week or so ... pardon the length.) Everyone keeps screaming how you always have to dump to DOS to "type" a file from a comm program. First, why would you want to download a file then read it while you are on-line? I presume you are on-line since you keep reiterating the point that you are unwilling to exit your comm program. If you do want to read the file in DOS, most comm programs allow you to shell up to DOS. You don't have to exit the comm program. Now I'll admit that I have found myself wanting to do _something_ while my modem is busy downloading/uploading stuff, but certainly not at a frequency which warrants a new machine purchase. Three of four times over a period of 2 years does not qualify as a "pressing need" in my case. Now, about the Mac; I agree with most people that IBMs are IBMs and Macs are Macs AND each machine is good for different problems. My personal feelings towards the Mac is that it is too "padded" for my liking. Mice (mouses, whatever) are dandy instruments to use. I have one on my AT system for use with GEM and, when I'm really desperate, Windows. The mouse, in my mind, is only good for, perhaps, 40% of total data input. Desktop publishing, filename selection from a list (not icons) and games are the extent of my mouse usage. Other times it sets collecting dust. Icons are fine if you prefer looking at drawings. I prefer text over drawing in most cases. I just find that I like a nice command line staring me in the face. (The command line should be part of the OS and, therefore, FREE. It was implied in earlier postings that to obtain a command line on the Mac required _buying_ a program.) In conclusion (if anyone is still reading), the Mac's screen is too small. My personal minimum is 13". My IBM system has a 14" which is "ok". I would much prefer a 19" because it appears to be more "roomy" on the screen. Perhaps the newer Mac's have larger screens. I do not know since I haven't been looking at them lately. One thing I would like is multi-tasking ability -- something the 80286 seems not to do all that well. :-( Yeah, yeah, I could purchase the new Windows upgrade, but Mickeysoft products are near the bottom of my reliability list (DOS included). (Do I dare claim this verbose message as my own???) Shane Email: sdawalt@cs.wright.edu or 71076.511@compuserve.com
ez000453@deneb (01/08/90)
In article <1891@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: > ><> >only thing that *anybody* does. This is and always will be wrong. >Me, I don't do any of the things the Mac is reportedly good at. The few >that I might want to do in the future aren't *nearly* enough to invest >*double* the amount I have currently invested in my PC system for something >that won't suit *my* needs as well. If the Mac works best for you, fine >just don't insist that it "must" be better for me too! >-- >Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard >CIS: [70465,203] The chief reason anyone buys a PC these days is because it's cheaper. I don't include the 286 and higher machines because they cost quite a bit more...even the clones. Anyway, suppose we compare the Mac Plus to a PC/XT clone...so one might save up to $500 (or 50%) these days. BUT, I know that the person with the Mac system is going to blow away the PC system in 99% of the cases. I firmly believe that this is a generality that applies to all kinds of users (i.e., those whose needs are satisfied by this level of computers). That's my viewpoint and I do use PCs and Macs (mainly because I have to at work). Anyway, on the issue of reading captured text or ASCII files. IF (and a big IF) you have something like the SideKick accessory to read your TEXT file, then we have the equivalent of reading with a DA on the Mac. And yes, there is a free DA along with the shareware DAs. In general then, I would say that the machines have about equal capabilities in examining the captured TEXT files. Using type from the DOS prompt is primitive to say the least and not useful though is better than nothing. The Mac comes with Teach Text which will read your TEXT files too (plus I don't have to set directory paths on the Mac!) The only ones I know who have purchased XTs against my recommendations are those who cannot afford even the Mac Plus. No problem. I just allow them a little more time when assignments are given to them. Now, does someone want a discussion of the PC/ATs and 386 machines versus the MacII. My support for MacIIs is less solid because it's impossible for me to recommend such an expensive machine when the power is matched by MS-DOS mchines and the capabilities are not much greater than the Plus/SEs. OK, flame away! oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo o COLIN ONG Dept. Land, Air & Water Resources o o cgong@ucdavis.edu University of California, Davis CA 95616 o o ez000453@deneb.ucdavis.edu FULLY DISCLAIMED! o
ohrnb@edstip.EDS.COM (Erik Ohrnberger) (01/08/90)
Look at it this way: If you buy a Mac, all you'll ever run is Finder and System. If you buy a PC compatible you have a choice, based on your needs: DOS, Unix, Xenix, Pick, PC-MOS and a whole host of others. If you needs change, you can change the OS to meet the new needs. If you have a Mac, and your needs change, you'll have to make System and Finder meet the need, or replacing both with something that works. If you try to make System and Finder meet your needs, it may or may not work. If I have a 386 PC clone, and need to get into Multi-User OS, I just by some memory, some disk, and some software. The Mac will never get to a multi-user level. The point is not that you can run multi-user OS on the PC. The point is that I have some alternatives, while I percieve none on the Mac side. ***************************************************************************** Erik Ohrnberger "Be nice to me, I'm still a Net Virgin!" *****************************************************************************
jdevoto@Apple.COM (Jeanne A. E. DeVoto) (01/09/90)
In article <818@edstip.EDS.COM> ohrnb@edstip.EDS.COM (Erik Ohrnberger) writes: >If you buy a Mac, all you'll ever run is Finder and System. >If you buy a PC compatible you have a choice, based on your needs: >DOS, Unix, Xenix, Pick, PC-MOS and a whole host of others. If you needs >change, you can change the OS to meet the new needs. If you have a Mac, >and your needs change, you'll have to make System and Finder meet >the need, or replacing both with something that works. Uh, yeah. Apple sells two operating systems for the Mac: the Mac OS and a UNIX. You can buy an emulator that will run DOS in software, in a window, under the Mac OS. If you don't like A/UX, I understand someone has ported Minix. Also, even if you restrict yourself to the Mac OS, the Finder is not the only shell out there. I can think offhand of four alternatives, none of them expensive, two that operate as desk accessories. >If I have a 386 PC clone, and need to get into Multi-User OS, I just by >some memory, some disk, and some software. The Mac will never get to >a multi-user level. You can run A/UX multiuser, of course. >The point is not that you can run multi-user OS on the PC. The point is that >I have some alternatives, while I percieve none on the Mac side. Look. I know we all have our preferences, and I've learned a great deal about how some people prefer to work from this flame wa-- er, discussion. But please, before you sound off on the evils, inefficiencies, or demerits of the Mac, inform yourself. Ignorant slams do nothing to convince or inform anyone and only make the speaker look like a fool. -- ====== jeanne a. e. devoto ======================================== jdevoto@apple.com | You may not distribute this article under a jdevoto@well.UUCP | compilation copyright without my permission. ___________________________________________________________________ Apple Computer and I are not authorized | CI$: 72411,165 to speak for each other. | AppleLink: SQA.TEST
lad@lad.scs.com (Lawrence A. Deleski) (01/09/90)
From article <818@edstip.EDS.COM>, by ohrnb@edstip.EDS.COM (Erik Ohrnberger): > If you buy a Mac, all you'll ever run is Finder and System. Oh? Read on. > If you buy a PC compatible you have a choice, based on your needs: > DOS, Unix, Xenix, Pick, PC-MOS and a whole host of others. If you needs > change, you can change the OS to meet the new needs. If you have a Mac, Ahem. Ok, if we can agree that Xenix and Unix are the same (well, almost), and DOS is to the PC what the Finder is to the Mac, (I know, it's a stretch), then you're dead wrong. First, who cares about Pick? And PC-MOS, give me a break. I'd like to hear from ONE PC person running PC-MOS. The Mac runs the Finder, of course, and A/UX. So what's the problem? > > If I have a 386 PC clone, and need to get into Multi-User OS, I just by > some memory, some disk, and some software. The Mac will never get to > a multi-user level. A/UX is indeed 'multi-user'. So what's the problem? > The point is not that you can run multi-user OS on the PC. The point is that > I have some alternatives, while I percieve none on the Mac side. You're obviously unaware of the alternatives, that's all. -- Lawrence A. Deleski | Silicon Compiler Systems lad@sdl.scs.com | 15 Independence Blvd. uunet!sdl!lad | Warren, NJ 07060 MABELL: (201) 580-0102 | Ext. 216
uzun@pnet01.cts.com (Roger Uzun) (01/09/90)
Gee, on the Amiga you can download files, print files, edit a file,
and compile programs all at the same time. In fact with its custom
hardware none of these things get in the way of each other at all.
The only CPU intensive program is the compiler. You can even type
files to the screen at the same time if you want. Since each application
has its own virtual screen, there is no conflict there either.
I like the mac a lot, but using a true multitasking, multiscreen OS
cannot be beat, IMHO.
-Roger
UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!uzun
ARPA: crash!pnet01!uzun@nosc.mil
INET: uzun@pnet01.cts.comrht@smsdpg.uu.net (Randy Thompson) (01/10/90)
From article <818@edstip.EDS.COM>, by ohrnb@edstip.EDS.COM (Erik Ohrnberger): > Look at it this way: > If you buy a Mac, all you'll ever run is Finder and System. > If you buy a PC compatible you have a choice, based on your needs: > DOS, Unix, Xenix, Pick, PC-MOS and a whole host of others. If you needs > change, you can change the OS to meet the new needs. If you have a Mac, > and your needs change, you'll have to make System and Finder meet > the need, or replacing both with something that works. If you try to > make System and Finder meet your needs, it may or may not work. > > If I have a 386 PC clone, and need to get into Multi-User OS, I just by > some memory, some disk, and some software. The Mac will never get to > a multi-user level. > > The point is not that you can run multi-user OS on the PC. The point is that > I have some alternatives, while I percieve none on the Mac side. [Sigh] You are quite incorrect. Currently available on the mac are, of course the standard system/finder/multifinder, System V Unix in the form of A/UX, a unix like shell that runs under the MacOS called MacIDRIS (I think), the all powerful and blessed DOS (ACK!!! Just say no! - Bill the Cat) in the form of SoftPC (or, if you feel the need for more hardware, the Orange Micro Mac286 (Mac86 for the SE)). If I need multiuser, I go A/UX, which, by the way, also allows me to execute native MacOS binaries. DOS even runs UNDER the MacOS, so I can have a DOS and a Mac application running at the same time. No flame intended, but I had to reply, some neophite might have believed you. I suggest that you research your stuff more fully for this will surely flood your inbox with flames. > > ***************************************************************************** > Erik Ohrnberger > "Be nice to me, I'm still a Net Virgin!" > ***************************************************************************** ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <rofl! (rolling on floor laughing)> _________________________________________________________________________ Its a good thing that reality is NOT a matter of some peoples perception! _________________________________________________________________________ Randy Thompson | uunet!smsdpg!rht -- Office SMS Data Products Group, Inc. | uunet!smsdpg!tailchasr!rht -- Mac@home 703/648-9400 | _________________________________________________________________________ * Constructive criticism is always appreciated * Send Flames to: Trash%tailchasr@smsdpg.UUCP _________________________________________________________________________
bagpiper@pnet02.gryphon.com (Michael Hunter) (01/10/90)
lad@lad.scs.com (Lawrence A. Deleski) writes: >From article <818@edstip.EDS.COM>, by ohrnb@edstip.EDS.COM (Erik Ohrnberger): >The Mac runs the Finder, of course, and A/UX. So what's the problem? > and in the early days somebody produced a CPM for the mac :) A/UX has problems as a unix one nice point for the IBM PC type of machines is that many different versions of unix have been ported to them in various forms...all the way from xenix (which is a hack) to some really nice unixs' on 386.... and of course there is the Amiga which is just a nice machine with some cool hardware and not enough software.... Michael Mike Hunter - Box's and CPU's from HELL: iapx80[012]86, PR1ME 50 Series, 1750a UUCP: {ames!elroy, <routing site>}!gryphon!pnet02!bagpiper INET: bagpiper@pnet02.gryphon.com
mgodwin@rpp386.cactus.org (Mike Godwin) (01/10/90)
In article <818@edstip.EDS.COM> ohrnb@edstip.EDS.COM (Erik Ohrnberger) writes: >Look at it this way: >If you buy a Mac, all you'll ever run is Finder and System. >If you buy a PC compatible you have a choice, based on your needs: >DOS, Unix, Xenix, Pick, PC-MOS and a whole host of others. If you needs >change, you can change the OS to meet the new needs. Heh. I knew there was a reason I'm dissatisfied with my Mac, but I just couldn't put my finger on it. Then you pointed it out for me-- I can't run the Pick system! >If I have a 386 PC clone, and need to get into Multi-User OS, I just by >some memory, some disk, and some software. The Mac will never get to >a multi-user level. I'm on a Mac right now, Erik. It talks well enough with the big UNIX machines over at the nearby university as well as with the desktop Xenix machine run by a friend of mine. If I need to do access to nifty UNIX features, they're only a phone call away. More seriously, I don't know many people, whether Mac users or PC users (or users of any other kind of machine, for that matter) who suddenly find themselves confronted with the need to change their OSs. For users, the functionality of applications is more relevant than the functionality of any OS--of course, I'm distinguishing ordinary users from programmers in this. Sometimes, of course, extra functionality may derive directly from a particular OS. (Not that this is the kind of thing that drives people in the direction of MS-DOS.) But in my experience, with lots of users on lots of different machines, that's rarely the critical consideration. --Mike -- Mike Godwin UT Law School | "... and first I put my arms around him yes mgodwin@rpp386.cactus.org | and drew him down to me so he could feel my (512) 346-4190 | breasts all perfume yes and his heart was cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!mgodwin | going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes."
rht@smsdpg.uu.net (Randy Thompson) (01/11/90)
From article <24523@gryphon.COM>,by bagpiper@pnet02.gryphon.com(Michael Hunter):
> A/UX has problems as a unix
I just love substantiated comments like this. One could make the same
statement about _ANY_ *nix available for machine provided he/she didn't
happen to like the implementation. What _specific_ problems do *you*
have in calling A/UX a Unix implementation?
I have yet to meet a *nix that didnt have at least some problems or
bugs.
Get real.
_________________________________________________________________________
Randy Thompson | uunet!smsdpg!rht -- Office
SMS Data Products Group, Inc. | uunet!smsdpg!tailchasr!rht -- Mac@home
703/648-9400 |
_________________________________________________________________________
* Constructive criticism is always appreciated *
Send Flames to: Trash%tailchasr@smsdpg.UUCP
_________________________________________________________________________dwb@archer.apple.com (David W. Berry) (01/16/90)
In article <818@edstip.EDS.COM> ohrnb@edstip.EDS.COM (Erik Ohrnberger) writes: > >The point is not that you can run multi-user OS on the PC. The point is that >I have some alternatives, while I percieve none on the Mac side. Braappp!!!!! You seem to be forgetting that Apple has a Unix implementation (based on System V, with most BSD extensions) available. If Unix is what you want, Unix is what you can get.